[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Kim,

	"RFC as interpreted by FoI"

and in any case we are only concerned with the ccTLD aspect of things
so none of your 5 points are helpful.

But, just to make this clear, pick and choose can't be happening.

el

On 2021-04-22 17:04 , Kim Davies via Ccpdp-rm wrote:
 > Quoting Peter Koch via Ccpdp-rm on Wednesday April 21, 2021:
 >>
 >>> Moreover, a quick review shows any number of RFC’s Jon Postel penned
 >>> in whole or in part have been obsoleted by subsequent RFC’s by
 >>> different authors.
 >> ...
 >>> There is an argument here that 1591 itself needs to be updated and
 >>> made obsolete, though it’s well beyond the scope of this working
 >>> group.  FoI could have made this recommendation but did not.
 >>
 >> The observation that 1591 is effectively immutable is a feature,
 >> methinks.
 >
 > If some aspects of RFC 1591 cannot be considered obsolete, and the
 > entire document is retroactively deemed to be requirements, we have a
 > bit of a problem.  Some requirements from RFC 1591 that have not been
 > complied with for decades include:
 >
 >      * .NET is restricted to network providers
 >      * New TLD requests must be submitted via email to
 >      hostmaster at internic.net
 >      * WHOIS service at rs.internic.net, using NIC handles as
 >      arguments
 >      * InterNIC acting as the regional registry for North America
 >      * Paul Mockapetris being the POC for .INT registrations
 >
 > I am little concerned if there a desire for unwavering adherence to
 > RFC 1591 without room for assessing applicability in line with today's
 > operational realities.
 >
 > kim
[...]


-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse   \         /       Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
el at lisse.NA             / *      |  Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht  \      /  If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
10007, Namibia           ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply